By Jacob Klein
The Meno, probably the most broadly learn of the Platonic dialogues, is noticeable afresh during this unique interpretation that explores the discussion as a theatrical presentation. simply as Socrates's listeners may have puzzled and tested their very own pondering according to the presentation, so, Klein exhibits, may still sleek readers get entangled within the drama of the discussion. Klein deals a line-by-line statement at the textual content of the Meno itself that animates the characters and dialog and punctiliously probes each one major flip of the argument.
Originally released in 1965.
A UNC Press Enduring version -- UNC Press Enduring variants use the most recent in electronic expertise to make to be had back books from our extraordinary backlist that have been formerly out of print. those variations are released unaltered from the unique, and are awarded in reasonable paperback codecs, bringing readers either ancient and cultural value.
Read Online or Download A Commentary on Plato's Meno PDF
Best greek & roman books
Figures of Play explores the reflexive points of old theatrical tradition throughout genres. 5th century tragedy and comedy sublimated the agonistic foundation of Greek civilization in a fashion that invited the group of the polis to confront itself. within the theatre, as within the courts and assemblies, an important subset of the Athenian public used to be spectator and decide of contests the place very important social and ideological concerns have been performed to it by means of its personal contributors.
Till the release of this sequence over ten years in the past, the 15,000 volumes of the traditional Greek commentators on Aristotle, written quite often among 2 hundred and six hundred advert, constituted the most important corpus of extant Greek philosophical writings now not translated into English or different eu languages. Over 30 volumes have now seemed within the sequence, that's deliberate in a few 60 volumes altogether.
Lombardo and Bell have translated this significant early discussion on advantage, knowledge, and the character of Sophistic instructing into an idiom awesome for its liveliness and subtlety. Michael Frede has supplied a considerable advent that illuminates the dialogue's perennial curiosity, its Athenian political heritage, and the actual problems and ironic nuances of its argument.
- Plato, Clitophon
- Ernst Mach’s Vienna 1895–1930: Or Phenomenalism as Philosophy of Science
- Agora, Academy, and the Conduct of Philosophy
- Augustine: On the Free Choice of the Will, On Grace and Free Choice, and Other Writings
Extra info for A Commentary on Plato's Meno
73. Cf. Soph. 230 b 9. 74. Cf. the context of Symp. 222 c 6 and of Euthyd. 273 d 3. ) and makes him assert something which in fact— a n d again in conformity with his own doctrine—is decisively, a n d comically, reversed by what happens to T h e o d o r u s in the dialogue. T h u s is the mimetic self-refutation of Protagoras accomplished. B u t this consistent inconsistency characterizes not only Protagoras (or Heracleitus) b u t also our faculty of sensing, our aisthesis, as Socrates implied at the very beginning (152 a ) , immediately after T h e a e t e t u s h a d submitted his first tentative definition of knowledge for a common consideration.
157 fT. 13. Herodicus in Athenaeus 504 e — 505 b (reproduced by During, op. , pp. 24 f . ) ; Aulus Gellius X I V , 3 (a judicious a c c o u n t ) ; Diogenes Laertius I I I , 34; Marcellinus, Vita Thucyd. 27 (Schol. , Anabasis, II, 6, 2 9 ) . Modern literature on the subject, mentioned by During, op. cit,, p. 55, note 1, is listed extensively by J. Geffcken, Griechische. Literaturgeschichte II, 1934, Anmerkungen, p. 7, note 30. 14. Diog. Laert. II, 50. 15. In recent times, E. Bruhn, Χ 4 ρ ι τ < s fur Leo, 1911, revived the story in a modified form.
Culty in this: he claims that these statements amount to the same thing (170 a 1). And yet how is it possible at all to know what one does not know? " Critias does not believe that Socrates could fail to notice this and accuses Socrates of merely trying to refute him, while neglecting the very thing the argument, the logos, is about. Socrates denies this and asserts that his only purpose is to find out whether he is right in what he himself is saying, out of fear he might, without noticing it, believe he knew something, while he knew it not (φοβούμίνοϊ μη 7τοτί λάθω οίόμενοί μίν τι eldkvai, «ίδώί δέ μή — 166 d 1 - 2 ) .